The rapidly evolving federal priorities from 2025 are reshaping the public health landscape in the United States, which involves extensive restructuring of key health agencies, drastic reductions in federal research funding, abrupt termination of contracts with academic institutions, and a federal government shutdown [1,2]. Although the long-term and short-term effects of these changes are not yet fully understood, their implications have garnered considerable attention from social media. The rise of social media platforms over the past two decades has significantly transformed how individuals access and interpret health information, often amplifying both positive and negative sentiments [3]. Social media also provides a timely and proactive data source for understanding the impact of changing health policies on population well-being [4,5]. This study uses Reddit data to investigate how disruptions in federal public health funding and the federal workforce have influenced public sentiment among federal employees.

We identified 44,216 FedNews submissions related to public health between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2025. The volume of public health–related submissions grew significantly over this period, increasing from 519 in 2020 to 1794 in 2021, 2880 in 2022, 7511 in 2023, 10,605 in 2024, and 20,907 in 2025 (Table A2 in Multimedia Appendix 1). The sentiment analysis showed significant increases in expressions of fear and anger in public health–related submissions in 2025 compared to 2021‐2024 (Figure 1).

The average fear score for health-related submissions increased from 0.031 in 2024 to 0.041 in 2025, a substantial 32% increase. The average fear score in 2025 had nearly equaled those seen during the early COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 (see Figure A1 in Multimedia Appendix 1 for month-to-month change). Example submissions with high fear scores include (all submissions quoted have been paraphrased to protect the privacy of the posters/commenters):

The average anger score for health-related submissions rose significantly from 0.016 in 2024 to 0.026 in 2025, marking a 63% increase. Notably, the average anger score in 2025 surpassed that observed during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 (P<.001, 2-tailed test). Example submissions with high anger scores include the following:

The topics commonly discussed in public health–related submissions evolved over the years (Table A3 in Multimedia Appendix 1, Figure 2). Prior to 2025, discussions focused on general work arrangements and health benefits. By 2025, the focus had shifted dramatically to issues related to federal politics and policy changes, and their impacts on employees’ health and well-being.

This study found that fear and anger scores in health-related FedNews submissions rose 32% and 63%, respectively, in 2025 compared to 2024—anger surpassing levels seen during the COVID-19 pandemic—while discussion topics shifted from routine work matters to layoffs and policy changes. These findings extend prior survey-based evidence of elevated mental health burden among federal workers [9] and expert warnings about productivity losses from mass layoffs [10].

While the FedNews forum is a rich data source, it represents a self-selected sample of Reddit users who may not be representative of the broader federal workforce. Lexicon-based sentiment analysis, while widely validated in health contexts, cannot capture irony, sarcasm, or domain-specific language nuance. Additionally, while we observe co-occurrence of sentiment shifts and policy changes, causal attribution is not possible from this design. Future research could examine whether these sentiment changes correspond to declines in program performance and physical health outcomes.

A workforce experiencing record levels of fear and anger is less able to perform the high-quality work that underpins food and drug safety, disease surveillance, and emergency preparedness. Policymakers considering further restructuring of federal health agencies should recognize that psychological costs to the workforce are measurable, rapid in onset, and—if left unaddressed—likely to compound the operational disruptions produced by funding cuts alone.